Desperately Seeking Susan 1985

David Longenhagen III
Desperately Seeking Susan
Runtime 104 min
English
Directed by Susan Seidelman
Released 03/31/1985

On topic we talked about in class sometimes was to look at films in other ways. For this film I think a good topic would be to see the film in the perspective of a feminist. The film's plot is that there are two women, each with a different life style. The main character seems to be bored with her life, and cheating husband and decides to go looking for this girl Susan because of love for her posted in the personals page of a news paper. without giving to much away, The main character goes through a transformation, and realizes she's happier doing what she wants, with people she likes. It's really a story of a woman becoming free.

Roger Ebert's review of the film was very short. He gave it only three stars and stated that the film was "so unpredictable that is a way it's predictable" Sounds confusing But I know what he means. Basically he means that the film has a lot of flip flop of characters like the main character turns into the Madonna character, and every buddy is confused who is who. That's unpredictable, but as time goes on they keep repeating the gag, making it predictable. I do not think he enjoyed the film, But he did praise, the actors, Arquette, and Madonna for a great job. (Ebert).

Susan Kings report on Seidelman's recall of the film talked briefly about making the film and characters. She discusses how the story took place in New York and at the time Madonna was not as big as today, so filming was easy. After the film her album Like A Virgin became huge so timing was perfect. Also they talked about the punk (80's style) portrayed in the film, and how it's a complete spin from what Arquette's character is used to being from a suburban family. (King).

King's article talks about the opposites of the character's lifestyles. In the film It is a drastic difference. Madonna is a drifter dressed in the crazy style s of the 80s, While her opposite played by Arquette is boring, and her life seems dull as well. It was interesting to see how they get all mixed up and Arquette becomes a new women. For Ebert he didn't really say anything much, which is shocking. I do think he is right about the characters, they are brilliant. They know how to act, and how to show emotion and this makes the movie flow nicely. His unpredictable quote is understandable, I have seen so many movies that I was expecting things to happen like them getting mixed up together. But I was interested when the film did surprise you with the girl getting amnesia and so on.

In conclusion I thought the film was interesting with its use of character, just like Ebert and King said. To me three things made this film work. One, Its young Madonna she acted great, and is very attractive. Two the characters on the hole were fantastic, and really gave the story an edge. And finally three If you're a fan of the 80's you have to dig the style, the movie in some ways is outdated however the 80's is a very popular decade that I too find very intriguing. One more aspect about the main story, I liked a lot how the main character had a metamorphoses from a boring housewife, to a wild girl about town. i thought it was a great ending, and the plot came to a good conclusion. If you a fan of the 80's get some popcorn and get ready to go back in time.



Ebert, Roger. Desperately Seeking Susan. Rogerebert.com. 03/29/1985.
King, Susan. Los Angeles Film Festival: Susan Seidelman recalls making 'Desperately Seeking Susan'. Los Angeles Times. June 19, 2010.

Beauty and the Beast 1946

David Longenhagen III
Beauty and the beast
Runtime 96 min
French
Directed by Jean Cocteau
Released 10/29/1946

This film best fits in the area of Surreal film making. Surrealist art if I can call it that is a medium that lets the artist show either expression of a topic, or they make it for fun. Much of this art may be odd to some, or possibly shocking because it is way out there compared to "normal films". Beauty and the Beast, is full of this surrealism. In Bell's world we see what would be defined as normal a world controlled by greed, and back stabbing people. Then there is the Beast's world, in his castle arms are in the walls acting as candle holders, or waiters in the case of the dinner scenes. Every object like doors, beds, and statues are alive. The beast himself is "hideous" but is the kindest character in the film. This too many would be considered weird, but I found it to be very amusing. There are many symbolism but I like the idea that normal people are the monsters, and the Beast is the most human.

My first article is from Michael Popkin's Cocteau's beauty and the Beast: The Poet as monster. It gives a brief summary of the film and focuses mainly on two subjects the ending, and the idea of beauty killing the beast. Popkin tries to relate aspects of King Kong(1933), and this film. He relates character mainly Kong and the Beats, and Bell and Kong's love interest. The main idea of this comparing and contrasting is to look at beautiful monstrous love, and that beauty kills the beast. He explains his thoughts on character changes, how it relates to real life situations, and how the film can be interpreted. (Popkin). Ebert right of the bat starts to talk about the films magical quality. mainly its trick photography and the effects used. He then jumps deep into the film, by relating it to the 1991 Disney animated film for purpose of similar story aspects. After that the director is talked about for being a poet and a surrealist, this ties right into the discussion of the castle which Ebert describes as "The Strangest put to film". The story is then summarized, and the film history is given discussing how the director needed help for he got different men to help him with outdoor and inside shots. He concludes with a very interesting comment that children would watch this and like it, but years later the adult will watch it and gain something else from it. (Ebert).

I think these two authors or critics hit the nail on the head for this film. Popkin is right that when watching the film I do enjoy and sympathize with the Beast but at the end I was kind of disappointed at what happens to him. Like King Kong splattering on the street of New York, the Beast is dead then comes back as an imitation of her love from the beginning of the film. Then they jump Million Dollar Man style into eternity. So I do agree that beauty does kills the beast. Ebert's article was brilliant. The best part was the last line which I mentioned in the above paragraph. Children will watch this and find it fun, weird, or scary. But as an adult one will watch it and try and get a higher message out of it. Like example would be if I was small I would be like "oh Bell saved the Beast and they lived happily ever after", however as an adult I see this film and say to myself the Beast is the good guy, and the real monsters are the normal human beings like Bell's sisters.

I honestly enjoyed this film very much. I thought it was going to be a boring film with a guy in a suit. But I was wrong. It is a movie that is for all purposes a fairy tale showing how an individual shouldn't be judged by how they look but by what's on the inside. This idea is one of the best in the world because it is as true as night and day. There are no real monsters in the world by humans themselves. Being made after World War II, I'm sure the director had these ideas in mind. Many of my colleagues didn't like the ending but I think it went well with the ladder idea. The Beast and Bells past love switch appearance. The Beast who was kind turns into a man, while the man transforms into a evil character who wants to kill for Bell causing his soul to turn into the internal beast . The idea is difficult for me to describe but in short Avenant becomes on the inside, what people think of when they see the beast. All the evil is not external but internal. All in all this film is very interesting and I recommend it.

Ebert, Roger. Beauty and the Beast (1946). December 26, 1999
Popkin, Michael. Cocteau's Beauty & the Beast: The Poet as Monster.
Literature/Film Quarterly 10. 2 (1982): 100-109.

Rear Window 1954

David Longenhagen III
Rear window
Runtime 112 min
English
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock
Released 08/01/1954

Everything we have talked about in class was in Rear Window. There was montage, ideograms, and music to combing with the film to break the fourth wall. The film made one think that the setting was boring, the main character breaks his leg and is confined to his apartment. He too gets so board that he begins watching his neighbors. This to me realistic, who goes outside or looks out a window and doesn't see what their neighbors are doing? Montages give the story is transition from day to day, ideograms can be seen all over, each other apartment has a unique person living in them that represents something about human nature. The fourth wall was broken because when the main character and his friends tried to solve the mystery the music combined with the footage made you not witness suspense but fell it. And the very act that this movie made you feel makes it a masterpiece.

The article I found was by Michael Wilmington called Rear Window Still Looks Great. In it he discusses how the film has been re-mastered and it is still one of the greatest suspense films. He then goes into a summary of the film and then takes a look at the characters. He also talks about the setting which simple is mostly the main characters apartment. He called the film a dazzling cinematic style, and went on to discuss the main theme that there are perils to curiosity. (Wilmington). Ebert like always gives a very detailed account of the film. He basically praises it very highly. And talks about such film subjects such as the Kuleshov experiment. He concludes by diving into what makes this film a success, not just by having a great cast, but by the feeling it gives. Danger, suspense, and being a thriller are the tools at work and by the end of the film, Ebert refers to them in his final line as an equivalent to foreplay. (Ebert).

Suspense, and great acting are the key features in this film. I never saw this film before class, and i was blown away. The main character watches all the characters, and one suspects something's going to happen. It never does, until later in the movie when you hear a scream. This turns into a roller coaster ride that doesn't stop. It is epic in the way that it builds up the emotion. One scene when the main character's love interest is in the antagonist house snooping around and you see the man come home I was almost jumping out of my seat "get out!" I had fun because the suspense and sense of danger really was impressed on the viewer.

What can I say that hasn't already? I enjoyed this film so much that I got it after class. Because of the viewing I really like Hitchcock's work and will pursue his other works. This film like I said makes you want to yell at the screen. Like the main character your stuck sitting and can't do anything but look, and that idea works wonders. I highly recommend this film. Also They made a current film called Disturbia(2007), which is a modern remake. I suggest checking this film out too for some kicks.

Ebert, Roger. Rear Window (1954). February 20, 2000.
Wilmington, Michael. Rear Window Still Looks Great. Chicago Tribune [Chicago, Ill] 25 Feb 2000

Chinatown 1974

David Longenhagen III
11/23/2011
Chinatown
Runtime 130 min
English
Directed by Roman Polanski
Released 6/20/ 1974

I thought long about how to discuss this film in relation to the class, but I think I have to break it up into two categories first in the genre we discussed called film noir. Second is from Eisenstein's fifth chapter which is about breaking the fourth wall. Ok so film noir which in French means "black film" is a term used to describe a movie that his a crime drama, with use of sexual motives, and other traits like having a characters with mocking attitudes. The film has characters with mocking attitudes, and has sex so it is a positive match. Now Like I mentioned in other post I am more of a science fiction guy, and the closest I ever came to a noir film was probably the Terminator (1984). This film has inspired me to watch more of the genre because they have suspense, action, and factors that keep the viewer locked into their seat. Next is Eisenstein's fifth chapter. In this chapter he discusses that films that have great images, and sound/music could possible touch the viewer. This film breaks the fourth wall because what I saw and heard effected a lot of people and myself. There was too many examples to name but let's just take the ending (which I won't spoil) JJ the main character walks down the street with his two partners and then the music by Jerry Goldsmith plays. The situation that has just happened that I saw has emotionally impacted me, when I hear the music it adds to that emotion making me feel different then the last scenes. Another quick example is when JJ is riding into Chinatown with the villain there is a sense of uneasiness as to what will happen, then yet again Goldsmith's music comes on not orchrastrated but with bangs (similar to the Original Planet of the Apes series) This made me feel suspense like cranking a jack in the box hearing the sound and waiting for something to pop out at me. Now that these two topic has been discussed let's get to some articles about the film.

Chinatown written by yet again Roger Ebert explains that this film is not only entertainment, but has qualities of the 1940's films which were made in the same way. He then talks about Jack Nicholson's character JJ, and his lady costars given a summary of their character traits. He doesn't talk much about the main plot, or the ending which I found a little odd, but rather returns to the characters and praises Nicholson and his co star Faye Dunaway which he describes as a triumph in acting. He mentions the use of the character played by Dunaway and tells how she's basically there to learn from in the beginning we don't trust her, but as the movie progresses our trust grows. He concludes by talking about Nicholson's nose bandage and explains its importance because it isn't funny, and you never see one in a film. The last line of his review tells of a sequel made by Nicholson himself called The Two Jacks (1990). (Ebert). The second article I chose to talk about is written by hunter Cordaiy entitled Through a lens, darkly: teaching Chinatown. This is different than most journal articles I have talked about so far. Chinatown is a film with many layers, meaning that there is a lot of dimensions to the characters and plot. So I consider this a hard subject to discuss. Cordaiy writes this article to teach people how to talk and discuss the film which I think is a neat perspective to look at. It begins in addressing the dark and dangerous worlds portrayed by noir films. Then related this to the dark nature of human beings thus the look into Chinatown begins. He breaks the film down into several sections that stand out. Some examples are when he discusses Voyeurism, and Dark Places. These two are themes in the film, JJ spies on people or as the author puts it "peeping" looking through windows, off roofs, ect. The dark places theme is one that relates to the nature of the film. Human being are the monsters here, the dark side is that of them. The father daughter relationship, the idea of screwing people just to make more money, that type of actions. Other examples one might see in a classroom like story structure, and asking the question is this film a homage or a reconstruction. The author states that the film is paying homage to the past they use certain ideas, but it does have its moment that separate it from the rest. Like having a well dressed main character like JJ as opposed to not so well dressed heroes in other older films. It concludes with what should the students leave with. Well simply put the author says they should leaving with an idea of it being a perfect film or close to perfect. And also to understand human being and corruption especially in a city such as L. A. (Cordaiy).

These articles do not talk about the same material but rather work together to examine the movie as a whole. Ebert talks mostly about the characters and how they are outstanding. After watching the movies I have seen that the characters change and evolve during the progress of the movie. I would say if I had to pinpoint JJs transformation it would be when the gangster cut his nose. After that point we can see a go getter become a extremely cautious man yes he acts almost the same but after the nose job he knows he's diving into something bigger than he thought. another example is the main woman Dunaway at first she is secretive but as the film goes on she opens up more and more. basically as we watch the movie we know more and more about the characters just as they find out more and more about their on screen problems. The second article is the opposite of characters it talks about teaching the film. Now this may be a odd article to talk about but it worked. In class many said the movie was confusing, i didn't think so. However it did have many layers of mystery and plot twist. This article breaks it down and shows you why it works, and what it is about in a way. It mainly focuses on the themes, and the main idea which is a dark story. This dark story shows the dark side of humanity, and the article is right because after seeing the film I really felt hatred towards the evil character.

My personal opinion on the movie at first was hard to describe. I will not give away the ending because if I did there would be no point in watching it. But what I will say, is it has balls! This film was exceptional in every way possible. The characters were very strong and had great lines. The mystery was very intriguing and had me hooked. I sat watching this film and felt swallowed up as the plot was becoming deeper and deeper (in a good way). Jack Nicholson which I only remember him for his work in the Tim Burton's Batman (1989) and the Raven (1963) was terrific, and I have a new thought of the man now and want to see more of his films. Jerry Goldsmith's score was great and added to the effect of setting the mood for mystery and suspense. I was touched by this film and thought it was amazing, which goes with Eisenstein's fifth wall chapter. Some may not like the ending but that's life. And don't forget there is a sequel which I will be checking out very soon.

Cordaiy, Hunter. "through a lens, darkly: teaching CHINATOWN". Screen Education; Winter2009, Issue 54, p119-124, 6p.

Ebert, Roger. Chinatown. (2011). Rogerebert.com

The Searchers 1956

David Longenhagen III
10/30/2011
The Searchers
run time 119 min
English
Directed by John Ford
Released 3/13/1956

I really thought about what I should write about for how this film relates to what we talked about in class. Usually I just take the easy way out and say it uses montage. This film does use it quite well in the battle scenes, and also the journey of our heroes searching for Debbie. But I thought there was something more one can talk about. Two topics I want to discuss are Realism and discussing the Auteur theory with Ford. First off is realism, now I'm not talking about the

stereotypes of Mexicans, Native Americans, and the Heroic white man. I'm talking about the way the west was in real life. As a history student I have read many historical acts that show basically that anything goes in the west. Law is almost absent, and like in the film, groups would send killing parties and so on. Also Ford shows the homes, and insides of the homes with enough detail to show that the people live with little. For example when in the horse farmers home. John Wayne tells his supporting hero that he should stay and work there because he will have a good life. But inside the home there is no material, they have basic furniture, and clothing to the best standards of the area I presume. This shows that even the way people lived was difficult. Besides the characters the realism of the environments was I thought very well shown. Ford has streams, canyons, desserts, rocks, hills, etc.. This shows the rough living conditions people similar to our characters would have to live with. So realism was captured here I believe with the showing of living conditions, and nature. The second topic I wish to talk about is Auteur theory and how it relate to the director Ford. Well Auteur means author is French, and from what I gathered the term relates to how a director relates film to one's life. An example would be Truffaut's 400 Blows, how he bases his film off real situations he had as a child. Fords life when I did a little research shows that he is somewhat similar to the main character Ethan Edwards (John Wayne). I came to this conclusion because Ford was in the Army and later Navy. He was present at the D-Day invasion in WWII and later became an Rear Admiral. But the sailor aspect is just a part of what I'm discussing. After his services times he returned home. According to many actors and actresses he was very hard on them. He played pranks, and if a star was expecting "star treatment" they were pressed even harder. Now in the film John Wayne's character comes home late from the Civil War, and what do you know he treats every one like they are underneath him. He talks down to Martin the whole movie, but it turns out he likes him anyway. This is shown by the reading of the will. To conclude I'm just saying that the war aspect, and hardness of Ford is apparent in his character.

I saw one article that I really wanted to read and use for this project but I had some difficulties in attaining it. The article was called 'Let's Go Home, Debbie': The Matter of Blood Pollution, Combat Culture, and Cold War Hysteria in The Searchers (1956). Written by Sue Matheson, from what I could gather it had some great topics dealing with races and so on but I couldn't get the whole document which stinks. So I found A new one By Clay Steinman called The Method of The Searchers. His articles is a very in depth look at the plot of the movie and its symbolism. With the plot he tells the whole story from beginning to end, then takes a break to discuss the settings and importance of it. He talks about the interiors of the homes, different character groups, and the artistic use of nature and the

framing because of doorways or structures. He then looks at John Wayne's character and how he is a very savage guy. He uses evidence from the film when he shoots buffalo, and shoot the dead Indian in the eyes. But he also has a heart, obviously there is a love aspect about him and Martha. And the finding of Debbie is related to this. So his anger when she likes the Indians is like she betrayed him causing him to want to kill her, which he doesn't. Steinman also looks deep at the clothing, and even dialog or lack off. He says some things aren't explained fully, but at other times action speak louder than words. An example giving is when Wayne wants to kill his niece and Martin steps in front of her. The rest of the article talks about the building of tension to the climax and other aspects of the film. The article had a lot of information, and many things being discussed in-between the summary of the film. (Stienman).

Again I turn to Roger Ebert's website where his reviews of films are very interesting. In his review of The Searchers written in 2001 he says that it was the bases for STAR WARS (1977), and people at the time raved over its beauty and story. Today the feeling are the same. One aspect he talked about is racism. This is brought up because of the stereotypes of the Indians, and how Wayne's character says whatever he wants and gets away with it. Back in the 1950' the public just went along with it. He then says like Steinman that the movie was based on the book by Alan LeMay. An interesting idea portrayed by Ebert is that this film has two stories going at the same time. One is John Wayne's character is searching for Debbie, but also a love story is being told between Laurie and Martin. Ebert then tells a summary of the movie, and in his last paragraph he says that he was talking about subjects of racism and genocide, and tried to justify the two in the film. This would Have went well with Matheson's article.(Ebert).

These two articles speak much truth for the film. Stienman's approach was a very detailed explanation of the film's method. He spoke much about the use of doorways. And how they capture important scenes in them. In the class viewing I saw this. two parts that stood out was towards the end when the two heroes were running into a cave to fight the Indians. The Other was at the end when John Wayne saved Debbie and I guess decided he has to go back off into the sunset. There is a important part here that shows that he maybe wants to stay, but something calling him.

I also like the visuals. The inside of the door is pitch black, but the land is exposed to sunlight. This might be that if he stays there is an uncertainty, but he can see everything if he is outside. This brings us to another of Stienman's ideas, that the film lacks dialog(not in a bad way), So one just has to come up with these film theories on your own. Roger Ebert's article is similar to the one mentioned above, he too gives a summary of the movie. But instead of looking at many details, he talks about racism in the film. Now watching this film is class sure I can see what he is talking about. But Like any other form of art, or story I believe one must put themselves into the time period or state of mind. It is racist because at that time in history many Americans were. Now the fact that he is a former soldier of the Confederates does not mean that's the reasons he hates people, people in the north hate people too. Even when people saw this in the theaters there was this racism or should I say use of stereotypes in the media already. Cowboys are good, and Indians are bad that type of stuff was rampet, even today like toy plastic soldiers they have cowboys and Indians. But back to the film I think a point many miss is that the human mind or soul can change. In the film we see our hero come into screen full of hate towards Martin. But as the film goes on this changes slowly. At the end of the film Martin reads the will of our hero and sees that everything is left to him. This shows me relating to Stienmen's uses of actions are stronger than words that John Wayne has made a change. He is still a rough man, button the inside he probably sees that his ideas are not absolute, and that Martin is in fact family.

I thought this movie was the coolest film we have watched so far. And I am not putting the other films down, I just thought this was fresh and a new genre. I have never really watched a western before, and this movie blew me away. Sure there was racism and girls are treated differently than today but I thought it was good anyway. There was so many parts I liked and it would take forever to discuss them all. The one part that I thought was awesome was John Wayne's speech about finding Lucy. This was a mixture of feelings and all the actors in the scene were great. I think that line will always stay with me when he says "What do you want me to do draw you a picture!" Besides that the story was amazing as well. Men on a journey to find the most important thing in this world FAMILY. But there is two stories going on in this movie. Martin besides looking for Debbie is also having a love story with his woman. The title of this movie is called the Searchers, and when you get right down to the core of the film these two men were both searching for something let it be love, family, or revenge. The use of montage, realism, and Auteur make this film special. I just pray they never make a remake of it, as John Wayne says "That’ll be the day!" This movie is fantastic and I recommend it to anyone.





Ebert, Roger. The Searchers (1956). November 25, 2001. rogerebert.com

Steinman, Clay. The Method of The Searchers. Journal of the University Film Association , Vol. 28, No. 3, Special Student issue (Summer 1976), pp. 19-24

Matheson, Sue. 'Let's Go Home, Debbie': The Matter of Blood Pollution, Combat Culture, and Cold War Hysteria in The Searchers (1956). Journal of Popular Film & Television; 2011, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p50-58, 9p, 3 Black and White Photographs

Rashomon Journal

David Longenhagen III
10/11/2011
Rashomon
Japanese with English subtitles
Run Time 88 minuets
1959
Directed by Akira Kurosawa
Won the Blue Ribbon Award(1951), Golden Lion(1951), and the Italian Film Critics Award(1951).


The topic used in this film from class lectures is located in chapter three, dealing with ideograms. Now ideograms are symbols that have a meaning. As I have talked about before an example could be a picture of a eye, and a picture of water. separate they mean to see, and water. But together they might mean to cry. Now needless to say, there was very much use of symbols in Rashomon. For one there is the main gate half destroyed, the rain, the child found at the end, and even the characters. The character represent almost every aspect of Japanese culture. There is the Samurai, a woman, a thief, a farmer, a merchant, and a priest character. There is also the mentality of each character, and the idea of is their hope for the human spirit. All these symbols that are very different mash together to tell a confusing but very relevant story. The idea of human beings lying, and being trusted is a theme used in many movies. An example I can tell right of the back is John Carpenter's The Thing (1982), and its prequel which is equally as good in different ways The Thing (2011).

Keiko McDonald takes his article to new bounds by tackling the topic of symbols in the Rashomon film. He starts by saying nobody looks at them, and states that the meaning of the film is to examine human nature. This idea brings up his main theme of the films light and dark side of human beings. He also joined the themes and symbols, to demonstrate the way of the world at the time fragmented. Keiko then goes into a several page summary of the film, picking little pieces out to discuss his claims such as the wood cutter going into the forest. He says that the man is covered in sunlight until he enters the forest. In the forest he is only his with spots of light, he says this symbolizes the spotty aspect of mortality. The ending is also talked about for its hopeful meaning to the future.(McDonald) Roger Ebert starts his review by saying that before the film was made three assistant directors approached the main director and couldn't understand the story. The idea was that the story has no solution. Even though some did not understand the film it was a great success in Japan, and even the rest of the world. Because of its unique use of flash backs to tell stories other films have copied its routine. Ebert then gives a brief summary of the film, concluding that its strongest points are the use of emotion and visuals. He says that one of the most famous scenes in the whole movie is when the wood cutter character walks through the forest. He concludes his review by saying that the film is about self discovery and redemption.(Ebert)

These two articles go very well with my ideas of the film when i watched it in class. I thought that the story was a little confusing at first but it had a strong uses of symbols that tell a separate story from the main film. Both authors agree that the film has a massive theme of trust, and human nature, that ends with a redemption. The best scene I thought was the ending. In the ending I saw the commoner man and the woodcutter argue about being a thief. The woodcutter now appears to be guilty of stealing the woman's knife. Now the only pure character is the priest. But the woodcutter man then asked to take the child they find and raise it, since he already has 6 at home. This shows that man can change his ways for better, and captures the light and dark side that Keiko describes. This is also the redemption that both authors talk about, and there is a hope that human beings can be good, and not always evil.
After watching this film, and reading the articles, I have come up with the idea that movies are not just about story but also the little things that are shown in them. What I mean is Rashomon's movie is about people who lie about a rape, and murder. But when you look at the meaning, and symbols one finds that the movie is actually a theatrical form of a human mentality lecture. Human beings undoubtedly have a light and dark sides, but as Ebert says the film is also about self discovery. This could be seen when the woodcutter cracks and tells his story of what he saw, and he comes to the conclusion after a conflict that he is no better than the three, he is a thief. I like this idea because self discovery, like talking about the dark side of human nature is a topic many do not want to talk about in real life. This film grabs this topic, and lays it down for all to see. And it does it perfectly, but the ending gives hope to the idea that there is time to change for the better. And from what I saw and read I'm not the only one who feels this way because it is still considered a classic movie and well loved around the globe.

McDonald, Keiko I. Light and Darkness in Rashomon. Literature Film Quarterly; 1982, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p120, 10p.
Roger Ebert Rashomon (1950). rogerebert.com. May 26, 2002 2011

400 BLOWS JOURNAL

David J. Longenhagen III
10/09/11
The 400 Blows
Run Time: 99 min , and in Spain: 92 min
Language French
1959
Director: François Truffaut
Won six awards for best Director, Best Foreign Film, and also the Catholic Film Office Award, Mise-en-Scene from the Cannes Film Festival.

In class so far I have learned about montage, and too get a feeling who the movie is for by looking at it from different angles (ex. a feminist, or a child). Montage which is simply many shots put together to tell a story, feeling, or idea in a shorter amount of time. However there is more to montage than just that attribute. From the reading I have understood that different images can be put together to form new meaning, such as Eisenstein's views on ideograms. This film was put together using many montages following the life of young Antoine Doinel. I thought every sequence was done well, the children walking around town just filmed would have been very boring, but Truffaut montaged them together making for a more condensed and interesting viewing. These parts that stood out to me were the puppet show, the theft of the typewriter, and also ending with Antoine running to the beach. The puppet show was important to me for many reasons First it combined The two friends talking about taking a typewriter, a groups of children, and the play which I believe is little red Riding Hood. This scene is based on the ideas of ideograms. The children are a symbol of innocence. The boys conspiring to pursue in theft, is a transformation. I researched the Little Red Riding Hood story, and the part when the North man saves Miss Hood is described as being a rebirth, basically when the man kills the wolf Hood transformers from a person who believes everything to a person who is somewhat more cautious. What the real meaning is, is irrelevant what matters is that the main theme is rebirth. In this scene Antoine goes from being a child to deciding to be a bigger thief, an idea which changes his life in the end. The ending scene was also very well done showing Antoine running. The running shots with the background moving with him was awesome. And when he finally reaches the beach (which he talks about the whole movie) was a big step for him. He reached a new start, his parents don't want him, he is misunderstood by everyone but his friend. And he runs to possible start fresh. Explaining ideas and themes could go on for hundreds of pages, these are just examples to relate the film to what I have understood in class.
The first article I found was by Dennis Turner who wrote Made in the U.S.A.: The American Child in Truffaut's 400 Blows. The Journal article was brilliant. It was a mixture of talking about the film, the director, his views, critics views, and also how his characters relate to those scene in America, or the American Cinema. It starts by discussing the reasons for Truffaut making the film. From what I read the story was based on events of his own life, like his character he was pushed from one place to another. In today's terms his childhood was garbage, and because of this he felt "more at home with children than adults"( Turner, pg 2). The whole film was about French Realism (Turner, pg2). Now every so many pages there are sections were critics talk about the film and they praise its story, and camera work. an example is one that says that "his childhood is alive" (Turner, pg 3). Again the idea of his realism is pushed into our brains again and again. But from pages four to the end the article talks about the ending of the film. The article says that the ending was related to the Balzac book he was reading in class. And that basically the story revolves around the battle between a natural man and society. (Turner, pg 4-6). But the ending was made the way it was for several reasons mainly to show the main character running not away but towards the future. Also It is described that the ending doesn't solve any problems with the character because his freedom is to be shown in later. this only means that 400 Blows is in fact the first of a series of films. With three sequels the characters saga goes on (Turner, pgs 7, 2). The articles main subject is however the American views in the film. Mainly the idea of moving away from society, the article gives historical examples like men moving west, and also film examples of rebel characters in movies like James Dean.
The second article I read was from Roger Ebert. The whole article on his website praises the hell out of the film, and its director for his good storytelling. He goes into depth talking about the misunderstood main character and his hardships after he is labeled a liar by his teacher. The whole review is basically a summary of the main plot with some facts inserted like how Truffaut died in 1984 on a brain tumor. And how some scenes like when Antoine steals a picture outside the theater was actually based of something Truffaut did in real life. The best part of the review is in the beginning when he says one line describing the ending scene saying that the main character at the beach is actually a symbol for being at a point where he is stuck between the past and the future. And I feel that that sums up the movie's ending nicely. (Ebert).
Both Articles do a fine job discussing the main stories plot, and praising the Director for a job well done. But If I have to choose a aspect to talk about based on the film, I want to talk about the ending. At first I thought the ending was dull, but after watching the ending scenes two times I have come to grasp the idea that this movie isn't just a drama but rather has a deeper meaning. A misunderstood boy against the world, running his whole life based on what he told the psychologist and from what we've seen in the film. He runs to escape life in a sense, and what does he reach, a body of water, he's cornered by nature. Roger Ebert describes this scene as the character being stuck at a point between the past and future. And I agree with this statement. The main character is at a major turning point. Behind him is his one friend, the Country which now owns him, and his parents that don't want him. To his future is a body of water probably symbolizing the great unknown, that the future could hold any outcome. And that is where the movie ends. Turner's views are looking at this as a battle between a natural child, and society, and again this is a true and a well backed augment. Throughout the whole film he is always caught, at the wrong time, this happens to many people but with this character his life just snowballs into something he no longer has control over until the ending scene. The battle between him and society comes to a standstill in this films end, and were left wondering what now. Turner also discusses in his article the use of realism. And by watching this film I would never want to live in France. His movie shows the viewer a life filled with betrayal, no trust, greed, and hate. It is true that the world is the same today, but personally I don't like dramas, because of that. But the fact is when you take these characters such as the teacher, and mother who treat this young man like a villain, one must think what if it was me? And for that the French realism is most excellently executed in this film.

In conclusion with the movie, and two articles I have read I have no other opinion than I like this movie. I do not usually like movies like this, I'm usually a ALIEN, or TERMINATOR type of guy. But this movie is good because there is more to the story than we see. The Director's life is a great inspiration for the film, and many scenes are based on his childhood. The movie is a movie made with adult themes, but made with children which to some might be odd, but it is still a good film. When dealing with montage, and the subjects in the book, the film is a masterpiece. The camera work is awesome, filled with different shot that portray a idea, and in its completion a feeling. I do not know if I'm right about the whole puppet show hypothesis stated above but it made a lot of sense to me. My final views are just its a good movie, great story with a deep meaning, and uses many techniques mentioned by Eisenstein in his first three chapters. I really recommend this film because every time you watch it you see something new.

Turner, Dennis. Made in the U.S.A.: The American Child in Truffaut's 400 Blows.
Literature Film Quarterly; 1984, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p75, 11p.

Ebert, Roger. The 400 Blows (1959). http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990808/REVIEWS08/908080301/1023. Rogerebert.com, 2011.